Talk:OPEC/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old opening comments

[1] If OPEC has an official language, it would warrant mention. However, I was only able to find the one source (see above), and it didn't really look very convincing. Does OPEC carry out all of their meetings, etc in English, despite having 6 of the 11 members as Arabic speaking countries?

  • Seven out of 11 members are Arabic-speaking countries, actually, but nonetheless OPEC's official language is English. See the OPEC Statute, Article 6: [2] --Metropolitan90 08:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


I re-worded this to eliminate the mention of arabic. I don't mean to bee to liberal, but honestly it's just as relevant that Venezuelans speak Spanish or that Iranians speak Farsi(or even Azeri or some other language) as opposed to english usage.--Ccosta 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting mention of it back in. It is certainly of note that the official language of the vast majority of member states is not the language that they use in their meetings. MrZaiustalk 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed generally regarded as a cartel and just called it a cartel. I don't know of anyone who thinks OPEC isn't a cartel.

Also removed statement about Saudi price of oil. The breakeven price of Saudi oil is very, very low.

It is now well known that the International Crude Oil prices depend largely on the USA's stand on Iraq. Every time the US plans to attack Iraq, the oil prices increase.

No. Venezula is a much higher impact on the current oil prices.

In fact, if I am not wrong, this has been happening in almost every year since the Gulf War. Given the situation, I seriously doubt if the US is trying to manipulate International Oil prices through its War on Iraq.

But, interestingly, there is yet another side to the story. Though the USA has large oil reserves, it has to import crude oil to meet its domestic demand. Now, this is puzzling, for any country which has to import a commodity, would not normally like to see the prices of the commodity rise.

The reason is that U.S. oil costs $10/barrel to produce while Saudi oil costs $2/barrel. It's just more efficient for the United States to import Saudi oil.

But, if US oil companies have some kind of an arrangement with major oil producing countries in the Gulf (For example an oil field taken on lease for a long period of time), through which they are able to get oil at prices that existed before the Gulf War began (or at least at prices below international parity), then things could be quite different.

The cost of producing oil at a well is determined by geology.

These companies would then surely find soaring oil prices to their liking, as they can then make huge profits.

Oil company profits are remarkably independent of the price of oil. Suppose oil prices rise, oil companies increase the price to the consumer. Suppose oil prices fall, oil companies decrease the price to the consumer. The net result is that oil companies make more or less the same about of money regardless of the price of oil.
That makes no sense. Higher price - constant production cost = bigger profits. - Tbannist
What oil companies *hate* is unpredictability. Oil companies can live with high prices. They can live with low prices. What oil companies *hate* is not knowing what the price of oil is going to be, because this means that they can't make long term investments.

All this could be with the help of politicians in the US and elsewhere, who do this even after knowing that it could be against their country's interests.

In fact, besides these companies, oil-producing countries in the Gulf such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq may be benefiting from the so-called dethroning of Saddam Hussein, as they have been getting better prices for their oil. However, the common man in every country including the US has been shelling out higher prices for oil and other commodities as well—indirectly contributed by the increase in oil prices, for no fault of his.

All the ideas expressed in this article are solely based on my assumptions. Nevertheless, I believe in what I have written, and call for a serious debate on the topic.

" is a rare example of a successful cartel" What does this mean exactly?

Most cartels do not last for long due to the incentive for members to covertly increase their production and thereby increase revenues and profits(called chiseling). mydogategodshat 01:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This articles has a permanent link from http://opec.com --Imran 23:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some one explain this sentence

However gold had experienced similar price increases in the intermediate years since the gold standard was ended in 1971 without the existence of any gold cartel. Many maintain that it was US inflation that allowed such pricing power to global commodity producers.

Roadrunner 00:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can give you an explanation, but do not interpret the explanation as support for the statement. There is an ongoing controversy between monetarist economists and Keynesian economists of the relative importance of the real economy (ie., the supply and demand for goods and services) and the monetary economy (ie., the supply and demand for money). Monetarists claim that the monetary economy drives most economic processes. To them, a constricted supply of crude oil (a real variable) will have little effect in the long run. They see the long run increase in oil prices, not as a result of OPEC's output restrictions, but as a result of monetary policy which since the early 1970s has abandoned the discipline of the gold standard, which allowed the growth of M1, which has lead to inflation, which increases the price of commodities. mydogategodshat 01:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Added founding date and members from http://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?month=10272961&day=10272979&cat=10272940 - Tbannist

What's the link with Ehrlich-Simon bet ??--Chealer 11:36, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Article name

Why isn't doesn't this article appear under the full name of the organization? This would make it consistent with the Wikipedia naming convnetion and with other international organizations, which are all spelled out? Kevintoronto

Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (NATO, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words).

Maybe in Toronto it's different, but here (US) everyone says OPEC, I imagine it's more recognizable than the whole name--69.232.37.139 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Member/nonmember list inconsistancy

The list of members includes former members, marked as such -- wouldn't it make more sense to put them in the list of nonmembers, marked as such? It'd also make the count above the list accurate.

The text: "Thanks to OPEC, member nations receive considerably more for the oil they export."

This is no longer the case because OPEC has a policy of maintaining the price of oil at $27 per barrel it is now at over $60 per barrel and all member states are producing oil at the fastest rate they can which means that thay have nothing to thnk OPEC for.


I have a question about this particular section. How is membership decided in OPEC. I mean it doesn't say anywhere how a country becomes a member of OPEC. Thank you, October 25, 2006

Mr October 25, 2006, I believe current members vote on allowing new members in. Also, members have to pay a membership fee and meet quotas.

Also, I second the first line. Ecuador is listed but it isn't a part of OPEC for a long time now according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC#_ref-6 --Zybez (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

History Section

The history section of this article seems to wander quite far off topic without really addressing the history of the organization. Some oh so helpful person seems to have even removed what little information there was about its founding. I will try to fix this by going through the edit history (although I know very little about OPEC). And by the way, please sign your edits, people!Halidecyphon 06:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I echo this. The History section doesn't even mention when/where/why OPEC was founded. That might be important. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.162.26.132 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely. I was going to start a thread about this here. It would appear that Halidecyphon's efforts were unsuccessful, since nothing seems to have changed since his September 2005 post. However, we do have a history of OPEC on the website, but it's at the 1973 oil crisis article. This needs to be amended. Regards, Redux 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have now made alterations in the article to correct this: the "History" section was renamed to "Operations", since it wasn't really about the organization's history. I then created a new "History" section, using the information from another article of ours: 1973 oil crisis. The data was copied and pasted from there, so that we'd have it here as well. Regards, Redux 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

yemen

should yemen really be listed as a non-member oil producer? they have very little oil. Arre 07:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


why not, it produced 410,000 bbls of oil/day in march 2006, syria produced an equal amount, eygpt at 690,000 bbls/day and oman at 770,000 bbls/day. I would hardly say that it wasn't an insignifiacnt amount. also exploration in Yemen is picking up in recent years. These firgures where from April's edition of "World Oil" Philbentley 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Headquarters

Why is the seat of OPEC in Vienna? Austria seems like an odd choice: non - producing, home to no major oil company, it has no history of international influence (like that of France, the UK or others)? Also, Geneva used to be the seat of OPEC, but it moved after 5 years to Vienna. Again, an unusual choice of sorts, don't you think?

not really. The reasons you give were probably the main reasons WHY it is in vienna (and not in a member-state). Austria is neutral, both politically and concerning the oil-business, has no influence on any of the member-states, has no direct interest in the oil business (besides using some of the oil). I think being politically neutral was the main reason though. This qualifies Austria as much as Switzerland. I don't know why the changed the seat from Geneva to Vienna --Wirthi 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Operations

the last paragraph of the operation section is not very clear, it credits Hugo Chavez with getting the OPEC Countries in 1998 to scale back production. Chavez only became president in Dec of 1998. So they way it reads at the moment isn't very clear.

Have jsut been goggling around and can see what the orginal auther was trying to say. What happened was After 98 when Chavez took over he cut Venezuela's production down to the OPEC quota which previously it had been over producing. Will get round to clearing this section up a in a bit, wasa very good article in the Motely Fool website covering this. Philbentley 21:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I removed this statement...

Thanks to OPEC, member nations receive considerably more for the oil they export. "Last year, OPEC's 11 members . . . received $338 billion in revenue from oil exports, a 42% increase from 2003, according to figures compiled by the federal Energy Information Administration (New York Times, Jan. 28, 2005). Compare these figures to those from 1972, when oil exporters received $23 billion from oil exports, or 1977, when, in the aftermath of the 1973 energy crisis, they received $140 billion (Daniel Yergin, The Prize [Simon & Schuster, 1991], p. 634).

This reads too much like a sales pitch. Yes revenues have grown considerably. As has the price of Gasoline and the revenues of Venezuela and friends. This is not "Thanks to OPEC." Correlation is not causation, cum hoc ergot propter hoc. --Ccosta 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

For these reasons:

  • Too many lists. - The only remaining list is the list of member states, integral to the article. MrZaiustalk 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not enough references.
  • Questions unanswered (if they can't just say so in the talk page beside each questions)
    Are there controversies/scandals raised over this organization? - Yes, and they are dealt with in the article. Most controversial thing they've done is use the oil weapon and, well, exist. Government cartels regulating oil production and price are an anethma to the mechanisms of the free market. MrZaiustalk 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    How do countries adhere to OPEC?
    Why are there former members? How were they removed from the list? What happened? - clarified in article. MrZaiustalk 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    What about their meetings? Where are they held, when are they held?
Lincher 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
--Removed list of non members, moved list of secretaries general to a seperate page. The list of member states is short enough that it should remain in the article. The list of non-members was not necessary, and was incomplete. I added mention of every OPEC member to the List of oil-producing states, to make it easier to flip through the list and read from it much the same information that you could have gotten from the incomplete list of non-members. MrZaiustalk 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple more things to clear up before resubmitting - See also needs cleaned up & Further Reading cleanup. Make clear the OPEC stance, response, and actions taken after 9/11 & the 2003 Iraq invasion. Make at least some note on the role of an occupied Iraq in OPEC, if any. MrZaiustalk 15:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Broke everything out from this section into the Todo template

Graph of Oil Trading Nations

This graph contains errors, such as showing Indonesia as exporting as much as it produces (whereas in fact it is now a slight net importer).

It is also inconsistent in that it doesn't show nations selected on any particular criterion. Why show India and the USA, but not China or Japan among the importers? It can't be a list of the major oil traders because it includes some nations (such as the UK and Indonesia) that now have close parity between imports and exports. It can't be a list of major producers, because it omits some of the major producers such as Azerbaijan.

I don't know how to edit the picture in any simple way. I think it should be removed until the problems are fixed.

Ordinary Person 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have moved to image's talk page. Image talk:Chart-of-Oil-Trading-Nation.gif MrZaiustalk 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries → OPEC – This is a concept known almost entirely by its acronym, so to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), the acronym should be the page name. This is similar to NASA, CERN, SETI, NATO etc. Joffeloff 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Moved per unanimous support (and a good reason, too). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. Good call, if you ask me. --Dhartung | Talk 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well justified on requested moves, as this is one of those acronyms that has a stronger knoledge as the acronym than its spelled-out version, and as far as known, OPEC is only an acronym for one thing. Admin should entirely whammy the redirect too, as it should just be a move over redirect, something someone could've considered as a bold move. Unfortunatly, a spam bot hit it in late march. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per Kevin. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question...

OPEC is indeed almost always described as a cartel, and maybe it is one or maybe it isn't, but is there perhaps a more NPOV word to use here? Consortium comes to mind. (Does OPEC or any of its friends ever describe OPEC as a "cartel"? That seems most unlikely...) Just bringing this up for discussion, would like to hear thoughts on it. kthx, Paul 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point. Indeed, OPEC seems to dispute the 'cartel' attribute. I think the solution is to call it an international organization, and to mention that generally it is considered a cartel. For what it's worth, as the article mentions, OPEC is seen as a stereotypical cartel and is even used as such in textbooks. -- IlyaHaykinson 13:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Paul 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM!

There has been a user who has inserted picture that overlaps almost the entire introduction area, but is transparent. It allows no access to any of the hyperlinks in the intro section, and when someone clicks on it, they get directed to a page with the title "Penis". Vandalism or not? I think so.24.242.232.15 02:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous user

"raise the price"?

How can a cartel "raise the price" of crude oil? I'm pretty sure that all they can do directly is cut production. Thus, this article (and the On this day bit) should say something like "On January 7, 1975, OPEC cut oil production, causing a 10% price increase". Right? --Spangineerws (háblame) 01:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it now; my understanding was that as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: a seller sets the price. I understand its not as if they change the price tags on each barrel but production decisions are made specificly to set/controll the price. The insight and analysis is precise to the point that this is what they are effectively doing. That is the whole point of the organization.

Introduction

Can anyone provide a reputable reference for a comparison of North Sea and Gulf oil reserves compared to that of the OPEC nations? I believe calling these oil fields "large" in the intro when referring to OPEC price control is false. Does the production from these fields really diminish their control? If no one can convince me of this I am going to remove this language from the intro. Vessels42 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it 72 hours. I was thinking of Yergin's The Prize when I wrote that. But yes, given that the North Sea alone produces some 6 million gallons a day, and given the time that the field was discovered and brought on line, one can easily argue that it and other fields discovered and brought on line during the 70s and the rise of an essentially capitalist Russia greatly diminishes the control that OPEC can wield over world markets. MrZaiustalk 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

added angola

angola has been a member of OPEC since 2007, i noticed it was pinpointed on the minimap but not in the opening introduction to the article, so i added it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.20.220.60 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Daniel.finnan (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC) This means that OPEC now has 13 members - this needs to be updated in the main intro of the article.

Daniel.finnan (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC) SORRY! I mean Indonesia means there are now 13 members. Very sorry. Please update. I can't edit.

Iraq - Dollars and euro cents

I've seen numerous references to Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003 to back up the claim that Iraq moved back from euros to dollars after the 2003 invasion, but I can't locate a copy of the article anywhere. Anyone got a copy or access to one through their library that can confirm or refute the validity of that citation, and allow us to use it here or strike the statement? Shockingly difficult to find post-invasion sources on the subject. MrZaiustalk 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - Probably just speculation, given the early date of the piece. Still can't find a copy, but also can't find anything else of the sort on my own library's news search engine. Struck the unsourced statement. MrZaiustalk 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Green OPEC (PANPP)

Please include the AU-plan into the article which foresees the construction of a "green OPEC" (called the PANPP). More information on this site and this site. Note in the article that the move has been set-up despite the many problems with biofuels (see Biofuels article).

Thanks. KVDP (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization

There is little on the actual organization and way too much focus on the organization's international influence. How often does it meet? What does it actually enforce and how? What is the benefit to joining and the effect of leaving? Who is the president? How is the president chosen? - Keith D. Tyler 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel.finnan (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC) OPEC has 13 member countries - this needs to be updated.

Daniel.finnan (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Indonesia needs to be added.

Flag

Could someone add the easy-to-find OPEC flag to this page--208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

Okay, so has Indonesia withdrawn or not? The OPEC site still included her as a member, but the membership section of the article listed her as a former member despite stating her membership till December. Mr.Clown (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia has withdrawn, according to El-Badri - general secretary of OPEC. Daniel.finnan (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Share of the market

I've been looking over this page and I found that OPEC accounts for 35.6% of global Oil production. However, their website claims that they account for 45% 'of the world crude oil' and 55% of 'crude oil traded internationally'. -Lalabox --210.56.71.224 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of Oil Producing and Exporting Countries

Is this a wrong name for this organisation or a right one or a completely different organisation?82.131.27.232 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia's missing

According to the OPEC site and books, Indonesia is a member. 201.26.122.75 (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Why hasn't this article been updated to show that the Saudis walked out?

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/09/11/the-death-of-opec.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.137.92 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you posted your comment the same day as the news report, I'd say it's reasonable enough. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site (see Wikinews. That said, feel free to be bold and update it if you feel the changes are dramatic enough to warrant mention - Personally, I'd be tempted to give it a couple of days to let the dust settle. By the way, a much more reliable source would bethis much more calmly writen New York Times article, rather than the MSN blog/editorial linked above. MrZaiustalk 03:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
While we're talking about Saudi Arabia, they have not announced they are actually leaving OPEC, just that they will not honor the cartel-mandated production cut. They're still a member, and while this is significant, it's not as the section header "Possible dissolution" implies. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Untitled

An event in this article is a January 7 selected anniversary

Consumers

Is there any petroleum consumer countries organization ??.

Yes, it is known as TRW -- The Rest of the World.

Inconsistency

The author says that Iraq switching to the Euro for oil imports may have caused the Gulf War. The Euro did not enter circulation until 2002, the Gulf War was in 1990. Perhaps he/she meant the Second Gulf war?

No he/she didn't. The author only maintains that economics would be damaged in the US if other countries had followed Iraq's decision. The author did not mention that it caused the Gulf War, the second OR first.

This statement's conclusion is not supported by consensus amongst economic scholars. It appears to be ill-informed at best, but is most likely an error based on the author's bias.

Trinidad & Tobago

Shouldn't contries like the one above that produce oil be included in the non-members?

No mention of OPEC as an anti-competitive price fixing cartel?

There is no mention of the legal standing of OPEC in relation to anti-competitive and price cartel legislation. By US and EU standards OPEC is a price fixing cartel. Any group of companies operating in a similar manner in the US or EU would be subject to criminal prosecution. This article appears to be heavily manipulated and censored.

Ecuador

According to the OPEC website's list of members, Ecuador never quit OPEC


Ecuador(**) rejoined 2007 South America

    • Ecuador joined OPEC in 1973, suspended its membership from Dec. 1992-Oct.

2007


Gespalder (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What does Ecuador itself say? That said, the word "withdrew" that the article currently uses doesn't necessarily imply anything as permanent as "quitting" the organization. MrZaiustalk 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why only anti-USA members?

It looks like only Non Western countries are members... Why arent for example USA, Norway, UK, Russia or other countries members..?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.224.134 (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. That said, a number of OPEC member states play willing hosts to American military installations, even in spite of the massive unpopularity of the Iraq War outside of the United States. Go read Daniel Yergin's The Prize and take it somewhere else. MrZaiustalk 02:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
lol relax, its not an opinion its a fact, and should be added to the article to improve its quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.224.134 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it really isn't, and no, it really shouldn't. This is intended as an international encyclopedia - American editors should no more edit this article to discuss largely unrelated relations between OPEC's member states and their own than should Belgian or Micronesian editors. See WP:WORLDVIEW for more information, if interested. That said, there are articles on the foreign policy of nearly every country where it is perfectly relevant to discuss the foreign relations of any member state with any other state, if pertinent and reliably sourced. MrZaiustalk 09:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm not American btw :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.224.134 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia - Technical Error in the Article

Technically, Indonesia is still a member of OPEC, at least through the end of 2008. They have tendered their withdrawal and it has been accepted, however they are still members through the end of the year. This is why the OPEC web site still shows them as an active member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflayfield (talk • contribs) 02:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Dflayfield (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Shouldn't there be a sizable part of the OPEC page dedicated to controversies surrounding the group (such as acting like a monopoly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.207.69 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.64.123 (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a frequent user, so I won't labor to correct it, but it is interesting that 'cartel' is the second most co-searched Google term behind 'Oil', but is almost ignored in this entry. Is the consensus of international economists not applicable here? By contrast, Encyclopedia Brittanica's entry uses the word 'cartel' 26 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.204.182 (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree because on their site they say we only own 45% but we trade 55% so they kinda control the market check it out here http://www.opec.org/library/FAQs/aboutOPEC/q14.htm70.99.77.97 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC) WoRkEr

error

it says that gabon quit in 1995 but the OPEC website says that it quit in 1994.


Is it not a fact that the USA is a member of OPEC. Not a well known fact but one mooted regularly.Is it possible they are a secret member and do play a role in decision making? The whole assistance given by the USA to bring Saudi States oil production online back in the 1950's dictated that all sales be conducted in $US. This stays the same today even though the US is on the nose in most Saudi countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.7.139 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Citation please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No criticism

I am surprised that this article, which deserves it more than any other article, doesn't have a criticism section. I please encourage the editors working in this article to add it. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Source: The Plaid Avenger

Regarding the following source (currently footnote number 16):

Clark,F.,Hushour,J.,Reinholtz,N.,Reniers,A.,Rich,S.,Smith,A.Z.,Torres,J.,(2009, 2010). The plaid avenger.Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

I can't find how this source is related to the statement it was meant to support. Is The Plaid Avenger to be considered a primary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.227.70 (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is considered to be one of the most effective organizations in the world."

In the introductory paragraph, the following statement could be more effective if it were substantiated with a source:

"It is considered to be one of the most effective organizations in the world."

Part of the problem could be that the statement is just too broad; there are many organizations in the world, and not many of them have easily comparable indices for rating their effectiveness.

I do not mean by this comment to hurt anyone's feelings or belittle anyone's efforts. This article is a fine one. I have merely made a suggestion to those more knowledgeable than I to make the article even stronger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.227.70 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Algeria for Republic of China

List of OPEC nations includes "Republic of China" when it should in fact be Algeria. Population, land area and order of alphabet validate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.60.98 (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Map doesn't include South Sudan

Could potentially cause trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MythsterR (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Beginings of OPEC - Interstate Oil Compact

Prior to ~1970, America was the global oil store. Begining around 1930 an early version of OPEC was set up by Texas, Oklahoma and several other oil producing states. It was called the Interstate Oil Compact and its function was to regulate the amount of oil produced by each state so as to keep the price higher than would exist in a free market. After the middle east became the dominant exporter the IOC lost relevancy and probably still exists on paper but has no effect. I think the creators of the IOC probably helped create OPEC. I came to Wikipedia wanting to read more about the IOC. There is no article. There are numerous indirect mentions in Wikipedia like 'John Doe, governor of Texas, was chairman of the Interstate Oil Compact in the years before he became governor.' My wish is that the IOC get an article or that it be mentioned in the OPEC article. My personal knowledge of the IOC is limited but I think its historical context is just as important as OPEC. Really, I think OPEC is a child of IOC. OPEC can't be fuly appreciated without reference to the IOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.82.15 (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of OPEC in being a "cartel" is offensive

"OPEC (/ˈoʊpɛk/ oh-pek) (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is an oil cartel whose..." when Wikipedia should know that, aside from US connections to Nazi-Germany "down there", that it may more justly say "oil- and gas-exporting nations' multi-national organisation", that using "cartel" seems unwarranted here in describing an organisation as criminal rather than soon-UN-approved. You know it, please get it done! ;-) 109.189.209.28 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This sentence displays typical cartel behaviour "In the 1960s OPEC ensured that oil companies could not unilaterally cut prices." While the situation is too fluid at the moment to say whether that is still the case, price control by a group of companies or even countries, and/or volume control by that organisation/group is cartel behaviour, designed to keep others out or just kep up their profits. The Free Enterprise ideology that nearly everone subscribes to demands competition, not price control and all suppliers of goods and services setting their own prices and volumes. If something acts like a cartel, it is a cartel. If cheese manufacturers from various countries got together and do what OPEC has done, they'd be hit with an anti-trust trial as soon as it is known. 58.174.193.15 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
At this stage, the article is carefully worded and carefully referenced concerning these points. Yes, reliable sources (including OECD) state that OPEC is a cartel. No, it's not a crime for national governments to enter such agreements. —Patrug (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Bahrain? Why no mention?

Why is there no mention of Bahrain? Why was it never a member of OPEC? Did it ever want to join? Did other members ever want it to? Why and/or why not? Seems odd that Bahrain is the only GCC and only OAPEC country that is not also a member of OPEC. Benefac (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed other non-OPEC countries in OAPEC (Egypt, Syria, Tunisia), in GCC (Oman), and among the world's largest petroleum exporters (Russia, Canada, Mexico, Norway, etc). The OPEC article briefly reports the reasons why 3 countries quit, but there's no need to catalog the reasons why nearly 200 countries never joined. —Patrug (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Headquarters/location

Why the headquarters are located in Austria? Austria does not export even a liter of oil! Austria, like most European countries, only consumes oil, in vast amounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.4.86 (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The article now explains: Austria was a "neutral" location that gave OPEC diplomatic privileges when Switzerland wouldn't. —Patrug (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

OPEC over production / current issue

File:Http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-opecs-decision-to-go-after-market-share-cost-them-2015-7
the strategy to increase production cost Saudi Arabia about $90 billion/year and probably close to $200 billion/year for OPEC as a whole

Creating chapter 11 situations for US Shale companies, paradoxically has reduced the cost to produce shale/tight oil, because the debt equity attached to this oil is written down.

A lower oil price for a short while does increase the debt load and costs for US shale companies; BUT too big an oil price drop creates the reverse as the debt is written off. So what if A goes bankrupt that owns the Shale oil, it is now owed by B that owned the debt, which reduces costs. Shale/tight oil companies are becoming debt free, thanks. --Opec5542 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no reliable evidence of this occurring on a scale that's economically important for the global oil market. —Patrug (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oil price decline an organized short

OPEC can view the decline in oil price as an organized short by refineries etc to reduce the oil price, OR see it as an over production issue. An organized short requires a production cut because producing more which OPEC did plays into lower prices. Inotherwords, OPEC accepting the reasoning that a change in US shale production is their mission and to do this requires protecting marketshare as their response, makes the problem worse.

The article makes no mention of shorting of oil in the US that cannot be exported. This alternative explanation should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opec5542 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no reliable evidence of this occurring on a scale that's economically important for the global oil market. —Patrug (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Candidate for "Good Article" renomination?

@Mrzaius: From what I see in the history, the early development of this OPEC article was very impressive under your leadership, even though it fell short of "Good Article" status when nominated in 2006. It's also impressive that it consistently gets nearly 1,000,000 page views per year, the most of any of the 59 articles in Category:Petroleum economics. Over the past year, I've gradually done a bunch of work to update & clean up the article, incorporating numerous ideas from previous editors on the Talk & Archive pages and related articles. The footnoting still needs a little more work – but apart from that, do you think the article might soon be strong enough to renominate for a fresh GA review? Further suggestions welcome. —Patrug (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Article updated & stabilized & renominated for GA. Hope for the best! —Patrug (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on OPEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:OPEC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles. I have however reviewed several prominent, complex and popular articles, amongst these China, Female genital mutilation, and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I will take my time for this complex and popular topic. I look forward to hearing from you soon, --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well-written and easy to understand. Below for a suggestions
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Yes
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Addressed
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Addressed
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Addressed
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Addressed
7. Overall assessment.

Because this is a complex topic, I will divide my review into a short section outlining major issues, and then a more through review following. I'll take 2-3 more days to re-read the article and have a look at some extra resources, and then respond here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, welcome aboard. I'll be quite busy until April 15 with an important real-life deadline. I'll be happy to address any relatively quick issues before then – but if any issues would be more time-consuming, I might not be able to address them properly until the second half of April. Thanks for understanding. —Patrug (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Review

Prose

Overall excellent --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Suggestions - would recommend some of the in-text parentheses are removed and integrated as just sentences, eg
  • "By the time of the Libyan Civil War in 2011, OPEC was calling for more efforts by governments and regulatory bodies to curb "excessive speculation" in oil futures markets, blaming financial speculators for increasing volatility in prices, disconnected from market fundamentals"
  • "Although many believe that OPEC acts as a cartel when it sets production quotas to maintain price,[72] others point out that widespread cheating largely neutralizes OPEC's collective ability to influence prices"

Infobox - is it necessary to include the population or area of OPEC? It is not a political union so I don't think we should include this. We don't for eg United nations or World Health Organisation. Anyhow this may have been dealt with by other editors, this is just my suggestions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Removed parentheses, leaving those sentences as minor digressions from the historical chronology. Should be able to improve the flow by creating paragraphs elsewhere to focus on the membership & cartel issues, as you suggested. Trimmed infobox, agreeing that population & area don't need highlighting beyond the Membership tables. —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability

Citations needed for these sections:--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • "To combat falling revenue from oil sales, in 1982 Saudi Arabia pushed OPEC for audited national production quotas in an attempt to limit output and boost prices. When other OPEC nations failed to comply, Saudi Arabia first slashed its own production from 10 million barrels daily in 1979–1981 to just one-third of that level in 1985. When this proved ineffective, Saudi Arabia reversed course and flooded the market with cheap oil, causing prices to fall below US$10/bbl and higher-cost producers to become unprofitable"
  • "Benchmarks are used because oil prices differ based on variety, grade, delivery date and location, and other legal requirements."
  • "Other well-known benchmarks are West Texas Intermediate (WTI), Dubai Crude, Oman Crude, and Urals oil."
  • "Legislative proposals to limit sovereign immunity, such as the NOPEC Act"
  • "due to the country's daunting political difficulties."
 Done —Patrug (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I have checked random samples from the article. Only this sentence may need rewording - is almost exactly the same as the source document:--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • "In 1949, Venezuela and Iran were the first countries to move toward the establishment of OPEC, by inviting Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to exchange views and explore avenues for regular and closer communication "
  • Several matches from this sentence

(including one self-published book here: [3]) but they pleasingly seem to have been adopted from here

  • Again many sources copying this sentence from here "OPEC added to its goals the selling of oil for the socio-economic growth of poorer nations. The OPEC Special Fund was conceived in Algiers, Algeria, in March 1975, and was formally established the following January"
  • And again and again.

I can't find any other samples taken from other sources in this article. I do however note that this article forms the basis for quite a lot of other information provided about OPEC on the internet, perhaps because it is clear and well-written. Well done to the authors! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Good catch on the 1949 sentence. —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Coverage

What is covered presently is covered well - not too in-depth neither too superficial. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

To meet the criteria for "broadness" a section about "Criticism" or "Issues" should be included. There seem to be three main issues and two others I identify after reading this: --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Membership requirements such as production quotas and membership fees that cause members to opt in and out
  • Cartelisation and criticism of by other countries and consumers
  • Disputes between member countries and how they impact on OPEC - including regional issues and politicomilitary conflicts
  • ?Environmental concerns and protests related to OPEC and promotion of oil?
  • ?Future of OPEC in terms of membership, oil prices, importance with fracking and changing nature of energy production?

Specifically mentioning by name the eight observer countries in the "Membership" section would improve this article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What is included is written neutrally. However, I think the overall neutrality of the article may be improved by including some mention of the issues facing OPEC --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Possible As a start, I'll flesh out OK, I fleshed out the Membership section by adding info on departures, observers, cartels, and conflicts, while also keeping much of this info in the appropriate History subsections for the chronological context.
In the concluding sentence of the lead section, and the concluding paragraph of the article, we refer to non-OPEC and carbon-free energy sources as being among OPEC's potential long-term challenges – but environmental pressures haven't (yet) become a major issue that would seem to warrant more coverage in the OPEC article. Even in more-detailed articles like Climate change mitigation, Paris Agreement, 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the entire Category:Petroleum economics, there's no mention of OPEC being pressured (yet) by environmental concerns. It's definitely something to keep watching in the future, though for now I think the article ought to minimize any WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation, since even the experts have no reliable idea of the outcome.
Hope the broader coverage is acceptable now? —Patrug (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Much better. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done —Patrug (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Stable

Yes --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done For a complex topic with such high readership, I think the article's recent stability was largely achieved by limiting coverage of controversial issues (cartels, wars, predictions, etc) to just the "bare bones". I'll need to ponder how those issues might get beefed up without slipping back toward unstable edits again. —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, you do make a good point. That said there are many controversial articles on WP and I'm sure there is a way to do this with nuance and finesse. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: you've covered this in a very thoughtful way. Well done. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Images

Checked and verified. Images have a good rationale for inclusion. Two issues: --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Thematic image "Dramatically striking oil in Saudi Arabia" could be removed - is pre-OPEC era and doesn't really add to the article's text
  • I suggest removing the final image of North Dakota as it doesn't add materially to the article and the US is not an OPEC member.
 Possible Actually, I thought those two photos were pretty appropriate illustrations for the 2014–2016 oil glut, which is basically an enormous production battle between conventional Middle Eastern gusher wells (I couldn't find a similar post-1960 photo on Commons) and high-tech US shale frackers. I rewrote the two captions a bit – see if the rationale seems better now? Or would it make sense just to show this photo of Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi, who's cited as the main strategist behind the glut? —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I will think about this and get back to you. I've removed an old caption you changed which was accidentally within the body of the paragraph. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done —Patrug (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary

A great article that appears to be the source for quite a lot of other websites for OPEC-related material, always a good sign. Some issues before this article can be passed, but things that can be ironed out in a short timespan. I make some recommendations about how the article matches the guidelines above, and am happy to discuss them with you. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A few of your points will take time for me to ponder, but most seem very reasonable, and I've tackled a few of the "quickies" already. Hope it's OK for me to mark sections of the review "Done" as they're addressed – or is this something that only the reviewer should do? (The summary table is all yours, of course!) —Patrug (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping this up to date. I note you originally said you were unavailable before the 15th - I'm happy to wait until you have more time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I'll chip away at the simpler items first, though I'll probably need to wait past the 15th to broaden the coverage of controversial issues like cartels & wars. —Patrug (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
All of it might actually be ready now. Take a fresh look? —Patrug (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Updated. I think this article meets & exceeds the GA criteria. Well done for your edits to bring this popular and contentious article to GA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@LT910001: Tom, thanks so much for your straightforward & constructive suggestions, including the WP:DYK tip that I'm pursuing next. You made my introduction to the GA process a very positive experience.
Would you have any guidance on some quick procedural questions:
  1. Is there an automatic process that will add OPEC to the list of articles at WP:GA/SS, or should I do this manually? (It also never got added to WP:Good articles/recent, perhaps because of the typo when you set action2date=10 April 2014 instead of 2016 in Talk:OPEC's Article history template. For now, I've corrected the year manually.)
  2. I nominated the article under "Economics and business: Businesses and organizations" – but after seeing the full lists at WP:GA/SS, I think OPEC might fit better under "Politics and government: International organizations" (like NATO & EU, but strangely not UN)? Is this another case where I can make adjustments manually?
  3. If you have a couple minutes for a quick glance, do you think my related shorter article Petrodollar recycling might be a plausible GA nomination? Or is a specialized "spin-off" topic not considered broad enough for the GA process?
Thanks very much for any advice, or if you can point me in the right direction. —Patrug (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome - thanks for your work on the article! Sorry about that, that was my oversight. I've added it to government and politics / international organisations which as you say fits quite well. I'll reply on your talk page for the other article. I am not sure about "recent" but feel free to list it there if that's what's done :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone update the SVG map for the infobox?

Gabon is rejoining OPEC on 1 July 2016 and needs to be added to the blue-shaded countries on the infobox map commons:File:OPEC.svg. Can someone familiar with SVG please shade Gabon on the map, and review any of the lingering errors that need correcting in the SVG source code?

By 1 July 2016, if nobody has come forward to update this SVG file (unmaintained since 2013), then it should be replaced with commons:File:OPEC 2016-07.png.

Many thanks. —Patrug (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Updated SVG map for Gabon rejoining; still errors in source code. —Patrug (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The map file was completely fixed by User:Offnfopt at Commons:Graphics village pump – thanks! —Patrug (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

OPEC Powers and rights

I don't find any section describing the powers/jurisdiction of OPEC in decision making. Further, I don't see any section describing the rights of a member that is ensured by OPEC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.130.172 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OPEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No such thing as essential or succinct or not, price doesn't matter. Do any no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendc (talk • contribs) 03:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oil Politics: A Modern History of Petroleum

@Patrug and Tom (LT): As a good article, I expect it covers more information about OPEC. "Oil Politics: A Modern History of Petroleum"[4] is a good source to do this. For example there is some information about what happened from 1970 to 1974 which led to readjustment of the oil price. You can find it in this book pp. 110-174.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian I found this article suitably comprehensive to meet the good article criteria. That said, Wikipedia is not finished and there is always room for improvement! By the principle of the sacred light, having identified an area that could be improved and a resource to improve it, and showing some knowledge of the subject area, I invite you to improve this article yourself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

OPEC → Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries – Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy that says article titles should be full names, rather than acronyms? 73.82.167.45 (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The guideline is at WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Article titles like NASA are accepted "if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". I am otherwise neutral on this particular discussion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - in general texts, the first mention always uses the expanded form. -- Netoholic @ 07:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    This is also true for NASA, NATO and UNICEF, and of course any other acronym. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Not sure. OPEC does seem to me like closer to NASA or NATO in terms of usage. Certainly when OPEC was more in the news back in the day. I am not sure most people who heard the term OPEC would even knew exactly what the acronym meant. Walrasiad (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like NASA, NATO and UNICEF, this organization is primarily known by an acronym. Calidum 16:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The organization is popularly known as OPEC and holds WP:COMMONNAME Tessaracter (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with Calidum, acronym is more commonly used than full name. Vpab15 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:MOVE criterion #4 and #5, WP:NATURAL, and WP:ACRONYM under "Miscellanea" where the caveat says the acronym would create ambiguity.--Doug Mehus (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
What exactly makes the current title ambiguous? See also WP:VAGUEWAVE. Calidum 02:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Calidum, I can't think of one off-hand, so I will just stick with WP:NATURAL. It's also questionable whether OPEC is the common name. Both are equally used. I see no problem to using the longer name. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Also, the organisation itself uses the acronym all the time in its communication with the outer world. Wurdnurd2 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Undoubtedly the most common name. More used than the full name by a wide margin in both official and non official contexts whether in writing or in casual conversation. The nomination is also based on a false premise; the guideline (not policy) already exempted cases like this where the acronym is such so widely used that some people may have to even pause for a moment to recall the full meaning. And this is true for NASA, NATO and UNICEF and a host of others. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding references to OPEC+

International news agencies are now referring to the Vienna Group as OPEC+. As OPEC+ has been in the news a great deal, in large part due to the Russian influence, mention of the abbreviation should be made in this article. I propose the following:

  • OPEC+ be mentioned either in the short description or main body of the article
  • OPEC+ replace or be added to the Vienna Group section header
  • A redirect be added so that OPEC+ points to this article.

Reference links from 2018-2020 among widely circulated, international news agencies:

--Debiant (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's the OOEC logo? for real?

Don't they have the money to design a better one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.240.234 (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Membership list

Is there a reason that the infobox specifically calls out Algeria and Nigeria? It currently reads, "13 members, incl. Algeria and Nigeria" --Proctris (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. It doesn't seem they have any special status, nor are they the newest or only African member states, or remarkable in any other way in regards to their OPEC membership. I'll remove it. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Kuwait link picture

when putting the mouse over the link for Kuwait, the image shown is for car maker Renault, nothing to do with the country Movarela (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was vandalism on the Kuwait article. ClueBot NG had reverted it by the time you pointed this out, but it must have been one of those times where the pop-up feature displays an outdated version of the target page. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Cartel descriptor

I imagine this has been discussed before so I am asking here first. I do not see any major mention in the lead especially of OPEC being called a cartel, though many sources would describe the org in this manner. Is there any past discussion about this? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Took only a hot second to find one for example. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Map Update

Can someone please update the map to mark off Angola off OPEC?

Because they left over crude oil output quotas. RaiaxUwUX3 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The map has now been updated. No Chickenbro (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OPEC/Archive_1&oldid=1218558054"